Boisvert et al. v. Milton No. 292 (Rural Municipality), 2015 SKQB 2

• Judge: Scherman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 05, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKQB 2;(2015), 464 Sask.R. 283 (QB)

Boisvert v. Milton (2015), 464 Sask.R. 283 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.034

Raymond Boisvert and Murray Cowie (plaintiffs) v. Rural Municipality of Milton No. 292 (defendant)

(2013 QBG No. 1177; 2015 SKQB 2)

Indexed As: Boisvert et al. v. Milton No. 292 (Rural Municipality)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Scherman, J.

January 5, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' action sought to enforce an agreement for the purchase of land owned by the defendant rural municipality (RM). The plaintiffs had been RM councillors at the time the agreement came into existence. The RM applied to amend its defence to plead breaches of statutory and fiduciary duty by the plaintiffs arising from the plaintiffs' knowledge that another party wanted to purchase the land and their failure to disclose that knowledge.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 2101

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - General principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the following principles applied to applications to amend pleadings: "i.) Leave to amend is a discretionary remedy, but the practice is to allow amendments where it is necessary to determine the issues between the parties and it can be done without injustice to the other side; ii.) There is no injustice to the other side if it can be compensated in costs; iii.) The court's discretion is wide and should be exercised so as to ensure the real issues are dealt with as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible; and iv.) If the amendments are opposed, the court must consider the proposed amendments as if the opposing party had applied to strike the pleadings under Rule 7-9(2) [of the Queen's Bench Rules]" - See paragraph 8.

Practice - Topic 2123.1

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of defence - Adding new defence - The plaintiffs' action sought to enforce an agreement for the purchase of land owned by the defendant rural municipality (RM) - The plaintiffs had been RM councillors at the time the agreement came into existence - The RM applied to amend its defence to plead breaches of statutory and fiduciary duty by the plaintiffs arising from the plaintiffs' knowledge that another party wanted to purchase the land and their failure to disclose that knowledge - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - It was not obvious and beyond doubt that the proposed defence had no prospect of success - Further, the amendments were necessary to determine the real issue between the parties, which was whether the plaintiffs had material information that they had failed to disclose - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Practice - Topic 2123.1

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of defence - Adding new defence - The plaintiffs' action sought to enforce an agreement for the purchase of land owned by the defendant rural municipality (RM) - The plaintiffs had been RM councillors at the time the agreement came into existence - The RM applied to amend its defence to plead breaches of statutory and fiduciary duty by the plaintiffs arising from the plaintiffs' knowledge that another party wanted to purchase the land and their failure to disclose that knowledge - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The plaintiffs failed to establish that the proposed amendments were "frivolous, groundless, lacking in substance or prejudicial" - The material facts had been pled - How and why the plaintiffs had come into possession of the alleged knowledge was not a material fact - The fact that the allegations might lengthen the questioning and complicate the action was irrelevant to the issue of permitting the amendments - Any prejudice could be dealt with through costs - See paragraphs 16 to 23.

Practice - Topic 2142

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Considerations governing granting of leave - [See both Practice - Topic 2123.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Royal Bank of Canada v. Roles (1988), 74 Sask.R. 296 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Britney Wangler, for the plaintiffs;

Robert G. Kennedy, Q.C., for the defendant.

This application was heard by Scherman, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on January 5, 2015.